Correct.
The US Democratic Party - The Road to 2026 and 2028
- Thread starter rio's upper lip
- Start date
Correct.
Oh, just focus on the "basic" stuff like UBI? It's basic, so I guess a bunch of countries have it, right?
Have we ever been so deep into late stage capitalism as today?
We are literally at the most important time in human history. The decisions of politicians today will determine if we end up with a social utopia or a social dystopia in the near future. Democrats elites have decided they would like to test the latter first because they won't face the consequences.
UBI discussions had to be done yesterday, because its only logical. Only politicians in the pockets of big corporations would prefer not to have that conversation.
I can't be the only one that thought Trump's first term was gonna be a waking call for the true democrats on the democratic party. But nope. Biden (or his handlers) did nothing to prevent the shift and gave the country back to them on a silver plate.
ps. what about other basic stuff like condemning Israel and the genocide on Palestine? What about not bailing out Israel politicians from UN resolutions and international courts with their vetoes? A bunch of countries (big majority) have done that... Biden's USA didn't.
Where is this UBI stuff coming from? No country has a UBI and currently, I hear it mostly from a subset of right wingers who push it as a way to completely replace and dismantle the existing social safety net. Replace all government funded health care options (Medicare, Medicaid in the US), all welfare and financial assistance like food stamps, school lunches, etc. - just replace all that with UBI to "simplify" and make things more "efficient." I don't know anywhere in the advanced economies where UBI is seriously proposed in addition to the existing safety net and welfare system. So not sure why you are suggesting that as a winning campaign angle for the US Democrats when it certainly didn't work for Andrew Yang.
The issue with "slow and steady progress" versus "impatience" or whatever isn't the merits of the argument. It's that it often doesn't describe the way things actually happen and absolves Democrats of their own failures.
this is a very basic and important point that people need to grasp. the strategy to keep fascism away currently is "we will win every election." that's already failed - twice - both times when the election was a direct referendum on a fascist challenger to the status quo.
even besides that, there will always be economic, foreign, or other unpredictable changes, that will affect re-election of the Dem, or aid the election of the fascist.
i don't know if left populism is the answer electorally. i think bernie had his moment in 2016, and probably 2020, when he would have won. but more than that, the chance was to create a different politics, different institutions, and a different electoral coalition. one which wouldn't have been so easily swamped by trump. that remains the most important thing if the democrats are remotely serious about being fascism. apart from ruthlessly persecuting them once in power,, and ruthlessly persecuting billionaires like musk. none of which the dems are interested in doing.
if that doesn't happen, and one of the dem usual suspects governors wins 2028, we will be having this same conversation in 2032, 36, ...
FDR, Reagan, and seemingly Trump are re-alignment presidents. The Dems need a serious re-alignment before they can challenge fascism successfully.
Last edited:
This is a phyrric strategy.
The world is fecked with Trump but the world is every bit as fecked without him, in the absence of a genuine political change towards good policies. Fecked is fecked.
Americans are fecked on health and the Democrats have deliberately kiboshed any progress towards good health care for all (even though Kamala expressed support years back in the primary).
Americans are fecked on wealth inequality and cost of living but the Democrats want to work with billionaires of their choosing and suck up to them for donations.
Then there is their Trumpian immigration policies and continued neglect of climate change.
The current Democratic Party are hopeless for America. If you really think Dick Cheney's Democratic Party is America's only hope then it's already over.
The biggest battle should be against the Democratic Party's self serving instincts and those within their ranks that don't work for the people.
You can vote for Dems and settle for stage 3 cancer or you can vote Rep and settle for stage 4 cancer. Either way enjoy your cancer. Or you can fight back against the cancer within the party with a treatment program and strive for a healthier politics.
What's wrong with efficiency? So much money is "lost" by those private organisations in charge of the welfare programs. Not everything has to be funded by the government, leave some agency to the individual (you can choose what to buy your kid for lunch).
Education, healthcare and public security will always have to be funded by the state and never left to the market. No point in considering what right wingers want UBI to be. We are talking about what the supposedly "democrats" should want it to be.
The thing is this:
The era of AI and robotic automation is here (has been for a while now) so the rules of society need to change accordingly.
USA is already at crazy inequality levels, and is only gonna get worse. Every day that passes, there are gonna be less and less jobs available.
Every day that passes in which politicians leave corporations and multi billionaires to keep on concentrating the wealth and growing their fortunes, power and influence, is a day closer to a point when they will become the forever government, a dinasty that will have absolute power.
They can't be allowed to keep the wealth produced by machines and software to themselves. It has to be taxed and redistributed.
That's where this UBI stuff is coming from. The democrats should be offering solutions urgently, not what they have been doing for the last 50 years. UBI is one of those solutions.
As a unified front, imagine not being able to sell the idea of receiving a livable wage just by being a citizen (with some obligations) to the struggling majority.
If you communicate in simple universal terms (and not harvard or minority type of shit) it's an open goal. The fact they don't even try is clear evidence of who they are really working for.
If they can't persuade Americans that Universal Heathcare is a good thing (and they can't) then UBI is just a pipedream, the American attitude is if you want something it's up to you to go an get it, they don't expect (or want) to be given it, it doesn't matter how you communicate it, they won't listen
The idea that the world is equally as fecked without a Trump presidency as with a Trump presidency is false. The neo-liberal global economic system has a lot of flaws that should be corrected but the USA shifting to neo-mercantilism is historically objectively worse. Trump threatening allies like Canada, NATO nations, lecturing is definitely worse for all the Western nations. Trump's #1 donor giving millions and millions to boost far right parties around Europe takes things to a different level. And domestically its not even close. All of which eventually will affect most other nations.
If that was a winning strategy that Andrew Yang would have done way better in the 2020 primaries. Instead of that idea catching on, the very actors you mention thought about ways to co-opt it to reduce the social safety net funding. I think its too early for most people to see AI and automation as being that huge an issue. My guess is we are probably 7-10 years away from a world where the majority sees something like UBI as feasible, let alone necessary. Currently its seen both as unworkable and potentially undesirable.
Last edited:
Can they fecking retire? The first one is older than Clinton and the other almost as old as him. When Clinton started no one had internet in my class. When he retired Facebook, Twitter and all the way information is transmitted didn't even exist. I probably discovered Google a year after he retired.People they were just starting using email on the second term of Clinton
These people are too old to connect with a new generation that geared up to full right wing. This was never suppose to happen. You start left wing and mild down to left-center or center-right. If you start pure right wing, by 30 you are a nazi dick
They should retire or die. They still don't know what hit them
Andy Beshear should go for it, or perhaps Gretchen Whitmer?
With cuts that aggressive they'll rule it a suicide.
Edit: *checks replies* goddamn it I'm a hack. It seems everyone is already always thinking that Josh Shapiro covered up the brutal murder of a woman.
This is the stereotype the status quo wants to perpetuate but its obviously bollocks.
People were absolutely delighted to collect the checks socialist Trump gave during the pandemic.
As I said before, the key is to stay away from the pathetic classical democratic communication strategies and just talk to the people like normal people in ways you reach them all (and not only well off college students).
Here, get your stimulus check, your freedom check, your anti china check (to spend in America, for American products and services)... I'm sure they can come up with better marketing than get your "UBI check" if they wanted to.
By design. The supposedly people's party should educate the population but instead they just present you with some twerking from some random artist. They work for the owners of the system, not you. Democratic primaries are not even close to represent the people. Yang or Bernie never had a real chance inside that corrupt cesspit.
In 7-10 years from now, chances are UBI will have been already implemented in some ways. Sadly, the one orchestrated by the Musk and the likes.
"Here, get your monthly amazon points to spend on amazon.com and amazon sleeping pods with sponsored Instagram dream reels while you sleep"
Poor people will never gonna access fresh food ever again. They will have to eat some processed crap filled with microplatics from Tesla vending machines.
I wouldn't its say entirely by design. I just don't think a winnable campaign could be made.on UBI at this point in the US. The alarmist stuff about AI and the future isn't something that people feel yet. It's not going to resonate more than immigration and some of the other easy narratives Trump used.
Plus, I'm not sure the current Dems could even implement a UBI that wouldn't be either ineffective or good for the economy.
Trump seems to be doing ok with executive orders. Why didn't the democrats do the same thing?
He's literally a walking rotting and oozing abscess.
I think the point that @HTG and others are making is that when your party platform is slow and marginal, it increases the chance that "aberrations" like Trump winning twice happens. Trump should not be president. The Republicans should not control all 3 arms of government. Elon Musk should not... be. You cannot separate this from the Democrats' deliberate strategy of playing the margins and staying away from tackling big issues in big ways and only being focused on looking a little bit less crazy than the guys on the other side.
So maybe pure carnage from the Democrats would have a better chance?
The party has completely ceded the battle for attention. Check any major US paper's front page. It's just Trump, Musk, his cabinet, legislative moves... There is nothing that indicates Democrats are doing more than hoping fatigue swings things back to them in 2 years and 4 years.
AOC said she was tired of battling (or some other shit) and I think she was a bit too honest; I think most of them on that end feel the same way, and don't realize what's at stake.
Why not save some money, abolish Congress and let the leader rule as a Dictator or a King, he's certainly ignoring the law in many cases
Why not use the same weapons your opponents use to do evil shit to do good shit?
Democrats: that's not in the rule book! Dogs can't play basketball
Republicans: dog dunks on Democrats, nuts dragged over face in process
Scoreboard: Republicans up by 2
Democrats: but that's not allowed!
Republicans: dog crosses someone over, smashes another nut dragging on face dunk through
Democrats: Ref!!!
Scoreboard: Republicans up by 2, and a technical foul
Put this on infinite loop
What makes you think they haven't? See this for the numbers
The problem with Exectutive Orders is that they can be (and are) overturned by the next President with the stroke of a pen, effectively they're temporary short-term policies
I don't care about numbers, it's about the really consequential things. Trump says he's going to do something and he signs it. Maybe it will be reverted, but in the moment things start happening. Democrats are either cowards, incompetent or don't care.
So consequential things - such as, perhaps some of mthese?
Combating Emerging Firearms Threats and Improving School-Based Active-Shooter Drills
Investing in America and Investing in American Workers
White House Council on Supply Chain Resilience
COVID-19 and Public Health Preparedness and Response
Advancing Women's Health Research and Innovation
Scaling and Expanding the Use of Registered Apprenticeships in Industries and the Federal Government and Promoting Labor-Management Forums
Preventing Access to Americans' Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern
Amending Regulations Relating to the Safeguarding of Vessels, Harbors, Ports, and Waterfront Facilities of the United States
Interagency Security Committee
Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence
Addressing United States Investments in Certain National Security Technologies and Products in Countries of Concern
Federal Research and Development in Support of Domestic Manufacturing and United States Jobs
Advancing Economic Security for Military and Veteran Spouses, Military Caregivers, and Survivors
Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
Increasing Access to High-Quality Care and Supporting Caregivers
Prohibition on Use by the United States Government of Commercial Spyware That Poses Risks to National Security
Reducing Gun Violence and Making Our Communities Safer
Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Americans
A few of the Biden EO's, most of which Trump cancelled on day 1
Is this some kind of sick joke? Jesus, it's like you guys enjoy losing. OK, keep at it then, it's been working wonders.
- You should do a thing!
- shows the thing has been done
- whatever, loser
- shows the thing has been done
- whatever, loser
So when people complain democrats don't do what they promised they're talking about "Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All"?
They see democrats promise a lot and then fold on most things without putting up a fight. What they manage to achieve is never advertised em masse and it's never advertised with examples their voters can empathize with. Their attacks on the reps are mostly timid with a lot of "oh but we need to try and work across the aisle". Inspiring as feck...
Republicans see their leaders promise a lot and then try to do it from day 1, whatever the costs, going against the courts if need be. The show ice arresting people, they show their top guys go out there and try. If it fails they blame the other party loud and constantly yo motivate their voters to do even more. It'0s for evil reasons but it keeps them pumped.
But as I said, keep going, if "Amending Regulations Relating to the Safeguarding of Vessels, Harbors, Ports, and Waterfront Facilities of the United States" isn't enough to motivate voters to out there and fight, I understand you guys are out of options.
Insert skinner meme I guess.
- Do good healthcare options says Democrat voters, voters in general, polls overwhelmingly support.
- Shows Biden threatening to veto Universal Healthcare , Dem Party and leading Democrats ignoring good healthcare options and taking massive donations from parasitic insurance companies.
- Democrats are my daddy.
- Save us from Trump's inhumane Immigration policies.
- Dems say those immigration policies by Trump look very appealing.
- I want to feck my dad.
You can pretend that healthcare is not a crisis for Americans, or simply not care if it doesn't affect you.
You can pretend that The Democrats have worked tirelessly to adequately address the issue.
Bernie wanted to do something and a few others supported it. And so did the party, Biden, Harris pick up the mantel and pursue this popular and fundamentally good position? You can pretend they did.
Or you can acknowledge the repeated and aggressive attacks on these good policy positions by The Democratic Party. Acknowledge that they feck their voters.
You can pretend that The Democrats have worked tirelessly to adequately address the issue.
Bernie wanted to do something and a few others supported it. And so did the party, Biden, Harris pick up the mantel and pursue this popular and fundamentally good position? You can pretend they did.
Or you can acknowledge the repeated and aggressive attacks on these good policy positions by The Democratic Party. Acknowledge that they feck their voters.
The issue with healthcare is that nobody knows how to actually move the mantle without completely razing everything to the ground and start from scratch.
None of the policy options being bought forward for a Universal, single payer system in the United States has actually been fleshed out to solve some glaring issues.
1) What do you do about the private insurers? On the outset of things, the answer should be "Let them rot, who cares?". The problem is not that simple. By creating a single payer system you're essentially taking away a huge chunk of the private sector overnight, reducing/shrinking it massively. Health insurers will be bought to heel and the market caps will be wiped out. Again, who cares right? The problem is the 401k's care, the pension funds care, the veterans fund care, the credit lines and the banks care, the hundreds of thousands of employees at these health insurers care. Are all these hundreds of thousands of employee's efficient in providing healthcare outcomes? Absolutely not. But is it going to be both economically prudent and politically prudent to essentially make hundreds of thousands of people redundant overnight. This isn't creating the NHS where in 1945 the UK health system was pretty artisanal, without gigantic corporations each with 1000 stakeholders welfare dependent upon the performance of said companies.
2) What do you do about existing infrastructure? Do you nationalize everything? What happens to companies like HCA? Do you just pay them to run the infrastructure, hospitals, wards etc and the government just provides oversight? If you want to side-line them entirely you run the risk of the above. Ultimately, without a proper plan with the infrastructure providers and the insurers, you run the serious risk of causing a massive recession in the short-medium term as a 5 Trillion dollar industry is suddenly more than halved overnight.
3) Federal employment oversight - are Doctors employees of the state healthcare system or private hospitals? None of this has really been thought or at least documented in detail.
Right now I don't think Universal healthcare is the right option for USA right now - it will cause too much shock in the short-medium term to the economy. Best bet imo is to go for the Swiss Model, of really tightening the screw on insurance legislation and once the dust has settled on that, keep pressing forward with reform until a single payer option is actually viable. Going from 0 - 100 is going to have huge shockwaves.
None of the policy options being bought forward for a Universal, single payer system in the United States has actually been fleshed out to solve some glaring issues.
1) What do you do about the private insurers? On the outset of things, the answer should be "Let them rot, who cares?". The problem is not that simple. By creating a single payer system you're essentially taking away a huge chunk of the private sector overnight, reducing/shrinking it massively. Health insurers will be bought to heel and the market caps will be wiped out. Again, who cares right? The problem is the 401k's care, the pension funds care, the veterans fund care, the credit lines and the banks care, the hundreds of thousands of employees at these health insurers care. Are all these hundreds of thousands of employee's efficient in providing healthcare outcomes? Absolutely not. But is it going to be both economically prudent and politically prudent to essentially make hundreds of thousands of people redundant overnight. This isn't creating the NHS where in 1945 the UK health system was pretty artisanal, without gigantic corporations each with 1000 stakeholders welfare dependent upon the performance of said companies.
2) What do you do about existing infrastructure? Do you nationalize everything? What happens to companies like HCA? Do you just pay them to run the infrastructure, hospitals, wards etc and the government just provides oversight? If you want to side-line them entirely you run the risk of the above. Ultimately, without a proper plan with the infrastructure providers and the insurers, you run the serious risk of causing a massive recession in the short-medium term as a 5 Trillion dollar industry is suddenly more than halved overnight.
3) Federal employment oversight - are Doctors employees of the state healthcare system or private hospitals? None of this has really been thought or at least documented in detail.
Right now I don't think Universal healthcare is the right option for USA right now - it will cause too much shock in the short-medium term to the economy. Best bet imo is to go for the Swiss Model, of really tightening the screw on insurance legislation and once the dust has settled on that, keep pressing forward with reform until a single payer option is actually viable. Going from 0 - 100 is going to have huge shockwaves.
People are literally dying because they can't afford healthcare. Huge shockwaves are necessary.
It's like the gun thing. It's never the right time.
It's like the gun thing. It's never the right time.
People will literally die if a 5 trillion dollar industry gets legislated into none-existence overnight. Hundreds of thousands will lose their jobs, pensions will be wiped out, funds will be wiped out, regional banks will go under. It's introducing a trolley problem at that point.
Gun control is a totally different beast. The gun industry isn't 20% of US GDP. There are actual concerns outside of greedy lobbying and ideological nonsense when it comes to Health reform, it doesn't exist for gun control.
The UK (England) did it off the back of World War II.
Literally what I said. Also, why do you have to be antagonistic constantly? It's tiring.
Actually look into your history and stop being patronizing for the sake of it. Look at the pre-NHS system and how it is completely different to what the American system is. UK didn't have all of its state pensions, private banking sector and private pensions all tied up in giant Health conglamorates that took up 20% of the countries GDP.
Starting from 1945 in the UK was far easier and the short term opportunity cost was practically none-existent, especially since most of the actual cost was absorbed with reform during the war period.
The conditions are completely different, which was my point.
It's a false state system which must come down. Best to start now rather than assuming it cannot be done which leads to no action whatsoever.
Starting now is fine - coming up with a multi-stage process of how to get there is something I will really support.
But screaming for single payer UH without any credence of how to handle all the pitfalls is going to cause an incredible amount of pain.
Which is why it's probably best to start by tightening the noose on the Insurance companies, degrading them bit by bit, small piece at a time, until the market is well regulated enough so that prices and coverage isn't catastrophic, before pulling the rug from underneath them.
It gives all the people and institutions plenty of time to divest. I would rather than have periodic layoffs over a 5 year period than 1 sudden layoff of 500,000 people. Likewise, a slow decline of the stock performance of these companies is far better for the pension funds and 401k than wiping out 15% of their portfolios overnight.
Unemployment doesn't kill. If people lose their jobs, help them financially or incorporate them into the new national system, which will of course need hundreds of thousands of new workers.
The US has done many incredible things, I'm sure they can figure out how to prevent their citizens from dying because they don't have healthcare.